from the look-before-you-rip-out-the-server dept

When the recording industry convinced the Swedish police to take down the Pirate Bay search engine (for all of two days until they could find other accommodations that could then handle their massive upswing in traffic due to the publicity), they apparently did so in their typical haphazard fashion with plenty of collateral damage. This time, instead of accidentally suing dead people or those with no computers, the recording industry convinced the police that the Pirate Bay was a big enough threat that not only should its own servers to ripped out of the data center, but plenty of other servers nearby as well. That, for obvious reasons, isn't going over well with those whose servers were taken -- and, as pointed out by the folks at Digg, means that the impacted firms are asking the government for compensation for knocking them all offline for no good reason.

Reader Comments

Go Figure...

I mean it's not like what the police were commiting "questionable" acts... they only blacked out the surveilance camera half way through stealing servers not covered under the "questionably leagal" search and seizure warrant.

Re: k.

" Why should the swedish government be held
" responsible? isnt it the recroding industry at
" fault? why not go after them? and hey lets also
" sue the employees for things they did not comit.

The police are managed by the government. They are a representitive thereof. Public offices and all of that. If I convinced the police to beat the shit out of you, the government is responsible because it has liability for the actions of its public officials and their employees, including the police. While there may be laws in place whereever you are about convincing people to beat the shit out of each other, the police are still the ones that did it, and as representitives of the government, you were pretty much beaten down by your own elected officials.

The RIAA convinced the police to nab a bunch of unrelated servers while serving a legitamate warrant for a specific set of servers. The RIAA may have convinced them, but it was still the police that decided to be a collective asshat and just grab everything.

However, the average officer being nontechnical of course, this was was probably the proper move. The police are not techs and cannot tell which servers are doing what just by looking at them. They cannot ask the people whom they have a warrant against which are the servers they are here to confiscate, because those accused of criminal action, if guilty, are likely to lie about which servers contain the evidence and then delete the genuine server once the police left with the wrong one. So they have to grab them all.

BTW, not saying the pirate bay fellows were guilty of anything, just that the police cannot trust them because they are there serving warrant against them.

All this hype and faux hysteria ( or at least misguided hysteria ) is good advertising for the bay though.

Re: Re: k.

However, the average officer being nontechnical of course, this was was probably the proper move. The police are not techs and cannot tell which servers are doing what just by looking at them. They cannot ask the people whom they have a warrant against which are the servers they are here to confiscate, because those accused of criminal action, if guilty, are likely to lie about which servers contain the evidence and then delete the genuine server once the police left with the wrong one. So they have to grab them all.

Any ISP who doesn't know what servers are in what row of what rack probably wouldn't be capable of handling the traffic TPB produced. Most data centers I've seen are completely accounted for, with the ability to identify servers at a glance. Anything else would be a bitch to manage. Yes, they cannot trust the people whos servers they are taking, but they are dealing with the ISP. Was the TPB staff even present at the data center when the servers were confiscated?

Re: Re: Re: Re: k. (teKuru)

Re: Re: k.

"However, the average officer being nontechnical of course, this was was probably the proper move. The police are not techs and cannot tell which servers are doing what just by looking at them. They cannot ask the people whom they have a warrant against which are the servers they are here to confiscate, because those accused of criminal action"

They should have used discretion. If the police can't figure out which house on my block is selling crack, they wouldn't go and arrest everyone living in that neighborhood. That's discretion.

If they aren't tech heads, then they should have brought someone with them who is.

Re: Re: k.

In published interviews the owners have said that the servers were all clearly marked so that there could have been no "mistaking" which were which. Apparently the police purposely caused as much collateral damage as possible in order to punish the data center operators and their customers. Kind of the way some some military operations purposely cause "collateral damage" to civilian villagers they suspect of collaborating with enemies.

Re: k.

Why should the Swedish government be held responsible? isnt it the recroding industry at fault? why not go after them?

We should hold The Swedish government responsible for bowing down to an organization that is not any form of a government. If at anytime the government of any country begins to place money and global business interest, before the rights and interest of its people. Then the people should reclaim that government. Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson that back up my point. Yes, I am aware he is an American Founder but in today’s global conglomeration of people, his words ring true for all people.

"The public mind, [oppressed by despotism,] is manifestly advancing on the abusive prerogatives of their governors and bearing them down. No force in the government can withstand this in the long run." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1788.

"The public mind is manifestly advancing on the abusive prerogatives of their governors and bearing them down. No force in the government can withstand this in the long run. Courtiers had rather give up power than pleasures; they will barter, therefore, the usurped prerogatives of the King for the money of the people. This is the agent by which modern nations will recover their rights." --Thomas Jefferson to the Count de Moustier, 1788. ME 7:14

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282

Now I will address the second half of your statement. isnt it the recroding industry at fault? Yes, not only should the government be sued for it actions but the RIAA, and every music label it represents. Those companies taken offline should sue them for damages. The people of every nation for organized crime, extortion, and racketeering should sue them all. It occurs to me that the only reason to create a group or union is to represent a group that does not want to be directly held accountable for the actions of that group. Why would competing companies willing join forces? It appears to prevent negative damage from the actions of a group using mafia style techniques to squeeze a new business model of pay per use. The RIAA and every label that is a member do not want you to own any music. They will only want you to rent the tracks. This issue goes back to the creation of the CD and the use license that Phillips required agreement to in order to use, distribute, and record with CD’s. This stated that the purchase of a cd was a use license for the data and not the disc. Originally, it was to protect Phillips from loss data if the disc becomes damaged. It opened the door to the ability to back up any data you purchased. This would mean that if you purchased a music cd and it becomes corrupted you could legally download the corrupted tracks backed up online. This is why the music industry turned to extortion. Instead of buying the same thing, multiple times you could buy it once. Seeing that using force a sale could be made every time a track is played the business model shifted from descent music worth buying to what can we force down the listing groups throats.

So if anyone would like to pursue a global class action lawsuit; here is a list of companies and artist that are the RIAA:

Re: Re: k.

This is completely ludicrous. I hope, if it is indeed possible, that the Swedish government is bankrupted beyond repair due to this travesty of civil liberties and falls into anarchy. If these people are truly this ignorant, they deserve a home-hitting version of the French Revolution complete with public beheadings.

Re: Re: k

"All this hype and faux hysteria ( or at least misguided hysteria ) is good advertising for the bay though."
Apparently the amount of traffic to PB tripled after this incident. One of the news sites suggested (jokingly) that this may have been a "Reverse Psychology DDoS Attack". Joking aside, with the 404 errors and similar errors, can PB handle the extra traffic?
Now if they use something like Freenet to host their site, it'll be like the chain of events that lead to the development of Distributed Databases all over again :) Technology evolves.

Did anyone ever stop to think that what Pirate Bay is doing is promoting software and music theft? Everyone whines and whines about civil liberties and rights but the simple fact is Pirate Bay is exploiting Swiss law to operate as a piracy hub. They even have Pirate in the name. Someone please explain to me why you are entitled to steal someone elses property?

I don't support the government just raiding peoples businesses etc. but this is a pretty clear cut case.

So for all you whiners who think you deserve free music and software I will be over later to clean our your living room because I feel entitled to your TV and DVD player.

Re:

Did anyone ever stop to think that what Pirate Bay is doing is promoting software and music theft? Everyone whines and whines about civil liberties and rights but the simple fact is Pirate Bay is exploiting Swiss law to operate as a piracy hub. They even have Pirate in the name. Someone please explain to me why you are entitled to steal someone elses property?
No one's arguing that point, genius. The point is the other, non-thePirateBay.org servers that were confiscated for no good reason, because the police were grabbing shit indiscriminantly.

Re: Re:

" Did anyone ever stop to think that what Pirate Bay is doing is promoting software and music theft? Everyone whines and whines about civil liberties and rights but the simple fact is Pirate Bay is exploiting Swiss law"

The RIAA is a rogue organization created by companies who are afraid of change. They are losing money due to the changing times. As a dying breed they are fighting to prevent their own extinction. Pure and simple. Governments either don't care what the RIAA does or are getting kickbacks from what is happening in some fashion. For the same reason that the Oil Companies are allowed to gouge gas prices for no reason, making false claims for gas prices. The government can't gouge tax prices on every single tax paying American so they allow the oil companies to do it for them. What is better? Gouge taxes, or allow a companie to gouge prices whos product every single tax paying and lots of NON tax paying Americans including immigrants and teenagers MUST use and use EVERY single day religiously. It doesn't take a lot of thought to figure this out.

Swedish

I agree with Zach on this one

Ok people, when the police serve warrants, they execute them. If the warrant says grab servers, they grab servers, period. Why all of the outrage over people promoting methods of stealing? Sure, the RIAA is a group of idiots, just like SCO, patent trolls, the Bush policy makers, etc..etc...but in a world where profits are the key to everyone's bottom line, do you really fault the RIAA for doing what theycan to protect their product? If someone was stealing your mail, would you be upset? Your food? Your checking account? You all would protect what you think is reasonably your property. There is nothing wrong with people doing what is legal. The problem is in that profits are put above civility. Until we become a society that accepts equality for everyone and no one has more than the other, then accept this, keep stealing your music and movies, and when you get busted, serve or pay your penalty.

Oh, and for the ones who say they are making a backup, right. And I have some medicinal pot to sell you....

Re: I agree with Zach on this one

Stealing. Ok, clown... The RIAA protecting their product? Maybe the MPAA has a little ground in the matter, since they spend a whole lot of money producing and offering the movie for sale, in which they deserve the sales...

RIAA no... they pick-pocket the new artist's pockets of money their fans are TRYING to get to them, only for some idiot label to strip them of that money they should rightfully get.

Yeah, screw that I choose donating to the band themselves personally over ever going through some corporation who strips them of the money they rightfully deserve.

Don't give me that morality horse-crap. Check the leash the RIAA has got around your neck, it might be cutting off the blood to your head.

Re: I agree with Zach on this one

People are outraged over the seizure of servers owned by people not involved in anyway with The Pirate Bay. Your allegation that they were "people promoting methods of stealing" is the kind of outlandish propaganda expected of an astroturfing industry tool, whether you are or not.

Sharing isn't stealing, and once studios realsise that online sharing has actually helped the flagging recording industry, maybe they'll learn to capitalize instead of making every customer a criminal.

Re:

Re:

Stealing would mean the person that stole broke into someone elses computer and took the music without permission, or physically took the music in someway from someplace. The RIAA cannot point to anyone that broke into any of their or their clients computers. Hence no theft. They only claim that they have lost money due to lost sales in which they blame file sharing. The problem I see is there is no way they can say, with hard numbers, how many sales they supposedly lost. They only have to convice a judge they have lost sales, wheither true or not, to win a case.

Re:

... sharing isn't stealing. It is however copyright infringment.

By which country's copyright law(s)? By the U.S.A. laws, sharing is not. Libraries share pages (even whole books) from books, articals. They also share music, movies, etc. all the time. Now they (libraries) pay a fee for each article they copy, but it is in lue of a royalty which would be due if they were a business doing the same or if they sold it.

People are more like libraries than businesses, only with more rights than either of them. If a person has no intention of selling a copyrighted object or of preventing the person who copyrighted the object from making a living from the object, then he is not infringing the copyright. An owner of a copy of a piece of music/ video, etc., may copy it as many times as he wishes. And he can copy it to his HHD, iPOD, flash drive and make it available to his family as much as he wants. The copyright laws allow for this. IT. IS. CALLED. FAIR. USE.

Now as to ownership, someone may try to argue that such objects as music and video on cd/dvd are not sold but leased. And thus ownership stays with the copyright owner and only the physical media is sold. There is serious problems with this model and much legal precedents must be overturned to make such claims legally 'true.'

“Mean while back at the farm …”

…sharing isn't stealing. It is however copyright infringment.

But this has nothingr to do, legally, with file sharing and stealing. Personally I believe much of the file sharing is morally stealing. Not all of it, as the RAII has stated, but a large portion of it is.

What the TPB site was doing, up to the last month or so, was technique NOT ILLEGAL. Only recently has an individual in an agency of the Swedish government declared it illegal (based on a ‘Recommendation’ from the EU gov.) From that time on, the police must act as if what TPB was doing WAS illegal. (Are people considered innocent until proven guilty under Swedish law? How about EU law?)

Now we come to what the police did. It may have been legal under Swedish law but it was morally wrong for them to take, damage or obstruct the gainful and legal commerce of other companies, even if they were on machines that were owned by an ISP who “allowed” a company to “break the law.” There is no excuse for a government employee to ever over react in caring out his duties, as far as I can see. Personally I think an employee of the government should be subject to twice the punishment of a regular citizen if they break any law, even while fulfilling their duties.

Well that’s my $2/100. ;-}

-{ All my opinions are mine. Not someone else’s. And like all of my opinions are cast in structurally solid JELLO! With a little heat, -- they slump -- and can be recast in new and greater forms!}-

Zach, pull your head out of the RIAA's arse..

"by Zach on Jun 15th, 2006 @ 7:03am
Did anyone ever stop to think that what Pirate Bay is doing is promoting software and music theft? Everyone whines and whines about civil liberties and rights but the simple fact is Pirate Bay is exploiting Swiss law to operate as a piracy hub. They even have Pirate in the name. Someone please explain to me why you are entitled to steal someone elses property?
I don't support the government just raiding peoples businesses etc. but this is a pretty clear cut case."
So for all you whiners who think you deserve free music and software I will be over later to clean our your living room because I feel entitled to your TV and DVD player

Stop talking, NO ONE wants to hear THIS from YOU. Are you an employee of the RIAA? are YOU losing money because of Piratebay? SHUT-IT! go post that crap on the RIAA site, ass-bandit

Thoughts on filesharing

We've entered into a grey area!!! In order for the act of stealing to occur one must gain an item and another loose. For example if I steal from a store the store looses the product and I gain it. But when I download a program or a song, nothing tangible is lost. What these companies clamed to be missing are there investments and there profits.

They say they are loosing millions. The fact is they aren't loosing anything, they just assume that these people would be paying. The reality is that most people who illegally download a track probably can't afford the damn cd or program in the first place. So the RIAA can't really asses how much they could be making, and suing these people doesn't do much to thwart the problem.

Another thing to note, most of this illegal activity is done by teens and young adults, the people without disposable incomes. Let’s take the program Photoshop for example. This is a program that just about any college student has a ripped version of. A lot of people use this program but only a few will actually learn how to use it. Even master it and learn how to profit from it. In all likelihood those who master the program will either buy the program when they can afford it or work for a firm that will purchase a copy for there workstation.

Now adobe might look and say will all of these college students have a copy of it on there machines so we’ve lost x amount of dollars. But the truth is most of those students who use it to paste heads on donkeys probably don’t have the money in the first place for the program and wind up doing nothing with the program anyways. So are they stealing if adobe would have never gained anything from these people anyways? I mean adobe isn’t losing anything tangible, if anything they are gaining users. People learn the program for free and if it works out for them they buy it.

Now look at music, the same idea can be applied. We have a large group of people who don’t have the disposable income (they can’t afford the cd in the first place) listening to music. Now lets look and see how many of them found some obscure band, later on buying the or paying for a legal download when they could afford it.

The RIAA looks at these users with hard drives filled with music and they say, we’ve lost out on every single copy. We’ll have they, a lot of guys who share music don’t listen to all of it. I mean I have 150GB of music, most of it is there as an archive. I mean how often do I listen to nada surf. It lasted a week and then I was over it. But so what if it stay’s in my collection and someone else downloads it and enjoys it. I know I’m not.

The RIAA would disagree with me here, they would say hey, this guy is stealing from us and you’re letting him by providing your music to people to listen to. I say this, if I’m not profiting from its no different from me inviting a friend over to listen to nada surf or even having him borrow it for a week. The difference is I’m have thousands of friends come over ,not literally, but with file sharing is like opening up your cd book to your friends on the internet. Can you see now how this is a grey area. Sure there are people who could afford the cd’s and download cause they don’t want to pay. But that’s my point they wouldn’t pay in the first place… So how can the RIAA say they are loosing out on that profit they wouldn’t be getting in the first place. Then look at the millions of dollars the stars are making and these executives are getting. I don’t think p2p users are stealing there investment or profits at all!

Although Sean has awful grammer and spelling skills, he proves the point I've been screaming for years.

I think as a whole the distributation helps the bands more than hurts them.

Take for instance, Our Lady Peace. I LOVE their music. I've seen them several times in concert and own all their albums. About a month and a half to two months prior to the release of Gravity, their newest album, I found a pre-release of the album in an IRC channel and downloaded it.

My brother and myself listened to that album over and over again, and absolutly loved it. When the album was released, we BOTH bought it, even though we could have easily shared it. A week after the album was released they played at Deep Ellum Live in Dallas. We went and knew the album better than anyone else because we had the time to learn and love it.

Did anyone lose money? No.

Like sean said, I've got a nada surf album. I've got every U2 and REM album. Would I have BOUGHT all those albums? No fucking way. But because I could download them I grew to like the artists more, and I bought both band's newest albums and saw REM in concert, where I might not have done so otherwise.

Again, if anything, all those band MADE money off the whole thing. Not lost any. Anways.

Sweden vs. RIAA

I'll be surprised if Sweden does not turn around and sue RIAA for having their representatives give them bad information for what servers need to be taken.

I agree with the other posters, the music model that the RIAA wants so desperately to hold onto, is antiquated. A bunch of greedy, rich old guys who only want more money. Why else would the pressure iTunes to raise the price on some of their albums? Because they want to make even more money.

I always love the RIAA argument that sharing music is hurting the bands themselves. The bands only make about 3 cents per CD in royalties. And that money is sucked up by fees for making that recording (studio time, engineering time....) I think was Janice Ian (70's singer/songwriter) who said that she never got a royalty check from her Label, only that the royalty was used to pay off what she already owed the record label to make her albums. She only made money by touring.